Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 121
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042

    Sandman fat suspension fork prototypes

    Here are some shots of Sandman's fat suspension fork. These are prototypes made by German Answer (german:A. - lightweight bike engineering since 1995), and are a modified version of their "Flame" inverted suspension fork.

    -105 mm between the fork legs
    -90 mm travel, can be dropped to 15 mm on the fly (climbing mode)
    -495 mm axle to crown
    -approximately 1900 grams

    Andy
    Last edited by fc; 01-28-2013 at 05:02 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,524
    Nice!
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  3. #3
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,230
    So glad the A to C is low. I don't need more lustworthy items in my life.

    That is sweet though, pricing??
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,421
    Proper forks for proper bikes...
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Stock Flame forks are 506 mm A to C. The Sandman versions were done at 495 mm to match the Maverick SC32, since Sandman frames are designed to use the Maverick.
    No word on price yet. The prototypes just arrived, and will be tested in the next few weeks. The first batch of forks will go on complete Sandman Gobi builds.
    Mendon, out of curiosity, what are you comparing to when you say the 495 A to C is low?
    Andy

  6. #6
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon
    Mendon, out of curiosity, what are you comparing to when you say the 495 A to C is low?
    Andy
    DUC32 @ 520. I just designed a frame around one, sourced a good condition used one, etc. Having a cool offering show up, now, so close to delivery, would make me do very ill considered things
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    142
    Hebbe hebbe hebbe!!

  8. #8
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Time to take on another side job... =)

  9. #9
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,950
    What hub standard? 20 x 110?

  10. #10
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,862
    Interesting! For myself anyways I would rather have a lockout then a silly on the fly travel adj. Can't wait to see the price and what hub is used.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    The stock Flame fork uses a 20 mm thru axle (I assume 110 spacing- their website doesn't say). The Sandman versions will also use a 20 mm axle, but will come with either a custom wide front hub or with spacers to run a standard 110 hub.
    A lockout is an option on the stock Flame forks, but I'm not sure if one will be offered on the Sandman version, and I don't know if the lockout internal parts from a standard version could be added.
    Andy

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    How is the quality vs. a Maverick?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    46

    Very interested..

    I am also interested in this fork, always good to have options..
    "To Name me, is to label me." -
    Michi or Dick Van Patton

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmonkey
    I am also interested in this fork, always good to have options..
    No many options around... the SC32 is discontinued and the DUC can't handle wide rims (it narrows down on top), this looks like the only option for 70-80mm rim combo's.

    Reliability: time will tell, the Sandman test crew (including me :-)) will try to break these first 6 prototypes asap. If we succeed, I'll let you know. It's definitely a world of difference when you put them side by side: the SC32 looks like a twig compared to a Flame, the lower leg of a Flame is almost as wide as the upper of a SC32... and certified 1900 grams, I saw them hanging from a digital scale.

    Stiff too: if you take the front wheel on an SC32 between your legs you can turn the handlebars almost 20-30 in either direction (pretty scary in fact if you do that). Not so with the Flame, only a little give.
    With a steel steering tube instead of the stock alu one, they're cleared for tandem use.
    The "countersteering under braking" effect is also gone, and the shortening of the forks' travel on the fly instead of a lockout is also cool for me. The lockout being pretty useless for what I do with my bike, I've been running an SC32 for two years now and I've only once locked it out: on a 30km asfalt stretch.

    But I'll only be able to see what that gives on steep climbs and give it a serious test later this week or during the weekend, coupled to the new titanium frameset - I'll post a few pictures of both in action.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    393
    so at 105mm width a 100mm rim might be a tight fit? what size rims will you use for your testing?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan
    so at 105mm width a 100mm rim might be a tight fit? what size rims will you use for your testing?
    Me, I'll run 80mm rims. The other test riders will have 47mm rims. I don't think anyone will even try putting in 100's: this bike/suspension fork combo is made for fast & fun biking on rough terrain - not for slogging through soft & squishy stuff on a singlespeed or on the little ring (terrain and speeds where you don't need front suspension). And fast they are, one of the test crew finished 12th in the solo's men category of the BCBR last year on a Sandman Gobi/SC32 combo. You don't do that on a slug (and 100mm's).
    Those wide rims are great for area's where flotation is THE issue, where there's a thin line between biking and walking. No use to add a front sus there.

    Anyway, on all fat bike rims with a Surly tire you already have about 2" of very sensitive bump absorption. Everything extra is for taking the hurt out of big hits and maintaining control at higher speeds - running my front sus fat bike over rough stuff or downhill continues to put a on my face.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    393
    fair enough, I guess I know nothing about these bikes, but the tires seem heavy regardless on what rims you put them on

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    50
    Is the Sandman Gobi available in the US? If not, will it be?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco
    No many options around... the SC32 is discontinued...
    I hadn't encountered this info. Link?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,524
    I got some nice east coast rocks I can bang these off of if need be.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by zombinate
    I hadn't encountered this info. Link?

    Straight from Maverick today: Thanks for the email and interest in Maverick forks. The discontinuation of the SC32 fork is a little bit misleading. The SC32 is going to go through a redesign and since we are small the fork it will be off the market for approximately a year before we have the new one ready. Our current focus is on our carbon DUC models in both 36mm stanchions and 32mm stanchions.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot
    Straight from Maverick today: Thanks for the email and interest in Maverick forks. The discontinuation of the SC32 fork is a little bit misleading. The SC32 is going to go through a redesign and since we are small the fork it will be off the market for approximately a year before we have the new one ready. Our current focus is on our carbon DUC models in both 36mm stanchions and 32mm stanchions.
    That's about what I heard: "Maverick is putting all its fork eggs into a new double crown carbon fork, called a DUC36 and revised internals for its DUC32". Seems they dumped the old alu version of the DUC32 and go carbon for both models ?
    "Plans to restart production of the (slow selling) SC32 in 2012" - but given their record of keeping production dates... And let's face it, that fork needs more then a simple tune-up. It's from 2004 or 2005, things have progressed a bit suspensionwise since then. It's a decent fork and in my experience very reliable, but flexible as a noodle and a pain the b*tt to take the wheel in and out while keeping it in the same position vs the brake caliper. Seems like every time I take the wheel out I have to re-center my brake caliper...

    So they'll probably do a complete redesign and come up with a brand lower-travel fork, hence my "the SC32 is discontinued".
    .
    Last year the old DUC32 was out of stock and only a handful of SC32 left. I don't know if production of the new DUC forks has started - seems not because nobody carries them. And who knows when... there are some pretty dated threads about the announced DUC36 here in mtbr. If the new SC32 will take as long, we're looking at 2014...

    I found a DUC32 on ebay a while ago, as an upgrade for my old SC32 but it could only handle Larry's on a 47mm rim - alas not my 70mm's...
    From the pictures I find of the DUC36 I don't think it can handle wider tires, it's got thicker upper legs so probably less. And current frame geometry would have to be changed, it seems pretty long (travel seems to wander between 160 and 200mm, depending on the source).

    So if you need a suspension fork for your fatbike in a hurry, grab one of the remaining (?) SC32's, source one from ebay or wait 2 months for the German-A Flame "wide", I think Sandman will offer them as spare parts on their webshop.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    I would like to try the Flame but wonder how much it will cost in the US since our dollar is so weak.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco
    Me, I'll run 80mm rims. The other test riders will have 47mm rims. I don't think anyone will even try putting in 100's: this bike/suspension fork combo is made for fast & fun biking on rough terrain - not for slogging through soft & squishy stuff on a singlespeed or on the little ring (terrain and speeds where you don't need front suspension). And fast they are, one of the test crew finished 12th in the solo's men category of the BCBR last year on a Sandman Gobi/SC32 combo. You don't do that on a slug (and 100mm's).
    Those wide rims are great for area's where flotation is THE issue, where there's a thin line between biking and walking. No use to add a front sus there.

    Anyway, on all fat bike rims with a Surly tire you already have about 2" of very sensitive bump absorption. Everything extra is for taking the hurt out of big hits and maintaining control at higher speeds - running my front sus fat bike over rough stuff or downhill continues to put a on my face.
    I disagree with some of this... since nobody's yet made a susp. fork that would fit a hunddie, seem's kinda silly to make statements about how one might work and since when has it been a question of "need"? I for one would love to find out what a 100mm would feel like on a suspension fork. And, by the way, I spend plenty of time in the middle (and occasionally in the big) chainring. And, even 100's could use suspension goin' fast over the wind packed ripple sections, driftwood,etc. Thing is, most of us, fat biker's that is, ride in widely varying conditions and don't have a van full of optional gear following us to change wheels & etc. every time we go from dirt to soft sand. Wish that crown could be just a little wider! Remember everybody, talk is cheap... lot's of people make lot's of statements, they're just opinions...

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    393
    Amen to that, I really don't see the massive performance difference between a 80mm and a 100mm rim, both will suck for dirt riding compared to a regular 29" inch rim. But certain terrain that is bouncy will make for a more pleasurable ride regardless of rim width. Seems silly to not design something that will take all fat bike rims into account, its niche enough as is, might as well include them all

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan
    Amen to that, I really don't see the massive performance difference between a 80mm and a 100mm rim, both will suck for dirt riding compared to a regular 29" inch rim. But certain terrain that is bouncy will make for a more pleasurable ride regardless of rim width. Seems silly to not design something that will take all fat bike rims into account, its niche enough as is, might as well include them all
    If there's no significant performance difference between an 80mm and a 100mm rim there should be no problem at all for really-wide-rim folks wanting a sus fork: these fit an 80mm rim.

    I have lingering memories of very heavy double wall chopper rims that were only used for staying on top of fluffy snow or squishy sand - not for agressive biking on hard terrain.
    But you guys are right: times are a-changing and 100's are slimming down, tire profiles are getting more XC instead of "flat platform" so it might make sense to start looking for a suspension fork. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and it seems they've drawn it at 80mm. Because these things are already WIDE, like I said, an SC32 looks skinny next to it. I'll see if I can put one side by side for comparison and take a few shots.
    If you put this fork on most fat frames you'd probably have to install a headset with travel limit as it is, otherwise you'll dent the frame with the crowns.
    The Sandman Gobi downtubes are curved to let them swivel underneath - just - without resorting to (in my opinion ugly) head tubes sticking out from under the downtube.

    I made a first, too short testride with them on the newest Sandman (ti frame). Very confidence inspiring, I couldn't find bumps or holes big enough on the stretch I was on but it definitely felt ok. Warping under braking was a non-issue, plenty stiff.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco
    If there's no significant performance difference between an 80mm and a 100mm rim there should be no problem at all for really-wide-rim folks wanting a sus fork: these fit an 80mm rim.

    I have lingering memories of very heavy double wall chopper rims that were only used for staying on top of fluffy snow or squishy sand - not for agressive biking on hard terrain.
    But you guys are right: times are a-changing and 100's are slimming down, tire profiles are getting more XC instead of "flat platform" so it might make sense to start looking for a suspension fork. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and it seems they've drawn it at 80mm. Because these things are already WIDE, like I said, an SC32 looks skinny next to it. I'll see if I can put one side by side for comparison and take a few shots.
    If you put this fork on most fat frames you'd probably have to install a headset with travel limit as it is, otherwise you'll dent the frame with the crowns.
    The Sandman Gobi downtubes are curved to let them swivel underneath - just - without resorting to (in my opinion ugly) head tubes sticking out from under the downtube.

    I made a first, too short testride with them on the newest Sandman (ti frame). Very confidence inspiring, I couldn't find bumps or holes big enough on the stretch I was on but it definitely felt ok. Warping under braking was a non-issue, plenty stiff.
    Good point about the clearance issue, hadn't thought about that. My custom ALU fatty was built for the MAV w/ more than enough clearance for wider. Definatly could be an issue going wider w/ some production frames. I still think there's room for rear suspension in FB'ing too. doesn't need to be much. just enough to dampen the rebound of the "built in suspension" of FB tires. On longer soft sand/dune rides the "bounce" of the rebound can get a bit fatiguing. Sand has got to be tough on suspension parts though.... rigid has it's virtues... simplicity for sure!

  28. #28
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,350
    Hmmmm. Speaking as someone with recent experience on a fatbike running 100mm rims, full rigid over rough terrain -


    Comparing it to my normal 29er's - both FS and a full rigid Karate Monkey, the handling is good. The ride at 10ish psi was similar to the KM at 30. The traction, on the other hand, was outrageous - and the flotation over deep, soft, 4wd chewed arroyo sand was almost unbelievable. Slowed me down a bit is all.

    So - a little suspension would be nice. Not a lot, just something in the 50-80mm range. A soft-tail TI frame would be nice. Headshock or Action-Tec fork.

    I noted the bumps more from the back wheel. I note seeing a number of Pugsleys with Thudbusters on them.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Yah, whats the projected MSRP on this? whatever you do Sandman... get rid of that upward bent TT! Kinda cool lookin'... on the showroom floor, but I wouldn't want that thing "looming" under my units in the soft stuff!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    I have no idea what it's going to cost, my job is to try to break it .

    The upward bend doesn't bother at all, it's more visual than real.
    Take a good look at the frame on top of this thread. That's a medium frame and the top tube is actually pretty sloping, even with the upward bend, which in combination with the sweep of the lower tube gives it a real good apperance in real life. Here in Belgium we have a saying that you should never, ever discuss colours, tastes, religion and politics, but I know I prefer that upward sweep look compared to a downsweep - and straight tubes are so boring...

    They tried a more pronounced bend on one of the ti prototypes, but the series will have the lesser bend like the one in the picture above. Tailormade frames in alu or steel for the fluffly crowd are always possible with la carte specs, but the complete bikes (with the upward bend) will be decked out with a dropper seatpost, big brakes and light rims for fast & efficient travel over rough terrain - fully killers .

    I made a bet yesterday with a friend that we'd "compare" each others bikes on an upcoming trip over rough mountain trails. Roughly translated: we'll race each other until one of us crashes, repeatedly . We've done that several times earlier on previous bikes and have always been a close match on comparable bikes, so it will be interesting to see what happens now.
    He's on a spanking new Lapierre Spicy 916 and me on my Sandman... I heard he went to buy protectors today... maybe not a bad example to follow...

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,978
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan
    Amen to that, I really don't see the massive performance difference between a 80mm and a 100mm rim, both will suck for dirt riding compared to a regular 29" inch rim. But certain terrain that is bouncy will make for a more pleasurable ride regardless of rim width. Seems silly to not design something that will take all fat bike rims into account, its niche enough as is, might as well include them all
    Careful with your assumptions. Everything said about 29ers regarding rolling over obstacles and traction, at least on loose stuff, is true in spades for fat tires. They are slower for sure but speed is not always the goal for everyone.

    I agree with you that it would be good if you are designing something for fatbikes that it seems silly to exclude part of an allready small market. I hear what Caminoloco is saying about width but once you are way wide what's a little bit wider going to hurt?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Yeah, you should probably make it with 250 mm clearance between the fork legs. Who knows what width tire/rim combinations will be available in 5-10 more years.

  33. #33
    Slow But Still Pedaling
    Reputation: JimInSF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    484
    So what was the outcome on testing this fork?

  34. #34
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    price will be at least 1K USD me thinks
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  35. #35
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Ouch... though I guess if you corner the market, you get to see what the market will bear.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller
    Ouch... though I guess if you corner the market, you get to see what the market will bear.
    The Dollar-Euro exchange rate is not in our favor right now.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Good, but still a work in progress. It works very well, very stiff (with steel steerer it's ok for tandem use). On one prototype the valve for the travel adjustment leaked and since the travel adjustment isn't really necessary (you can climb a wall with the fork on full length) it was decided to ditch that valve and with it the twin air chambers in one leg. Less is more.

    In each fork leg there's now one big fat (!) air chamber, running on low pressure (40-50 psi) making it a pretty bombproof fork, such low pressures are super-easy on the seals.
    Last month we've done 6000+ft descents on rough volcanic trails during a whole week and zilch problems. Even when the Hope M4 brakes with metalflex hoses and 203mm rotors went the way of the Dodo (I nearly caused a forest fire when setting fire to dry leaves after crashing due to faded brakes ), the forks on the 4 prototypes we had with us kept swallowing the big hits with no problems.
    I'll dig up a few pictures.

    Sandman also asked for tool-less wheel removal, German Answer is now redesigning the dropout to accomodate that. Once that done it'll be a pretty neat fork on par with the most modern and best working forks out there: stiff, good function and "fat"

    As for price: the sticker price for a normal Flame is 800 Euro, I expect it will be similar.

  38. #38
    Slow But Still Pedaling
    Reputation: JimInSF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    484
    Any idea of a timeframe?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Will we even be able to get this over here, without flying over there and smuggling it back ourselves? I've yet to see a "German Answer" product myself this side of the pond. Looks super nice though. Hate to be "teased" with an awesome product that stays just out of reach.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    I think that GA is making the forks for Sandman exclusively, and Sandman will export. Shipping a frame over here wasn't as bad as I thought it might be (60 Euro) and I was never charged customs duty- I guess they didn't notice it.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Thanks Andy, love the beefy look and the idea of being sprung on both sides @ lower pressures. Might take care of the "uneven" "flexiness" of our Asymetrical Mavs. Speaking of the Maverick, mine's on it's way back from the factory right now after full routine service. They said they do plan to move ahead with an improved version of the SC32. No idea when it will be available or what they're doing to improve it.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    46
    Any updates on these forks?
    "To Name me, is to label me." -
    Michi or Dick Van Patton

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    There's some backlog with designing the new tool-less front wheel removal dropouts. I think they ordered a batch "as they were", but will provide a retrofit option for those who buy a fork with the old dropouts and later want to change to the new, improved ones.

    In the meantime, we're still trying to break the prototypes... hard work

    Last edited by caminoloco; 07-09-2011 at 02:10 AM.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    46

    Good job! Thanks!

    Thank you for the update.. Looks like you are really having fun testing them & trying to break 'em!

    Please keep us posted on any major updates.

    Thanks again.



    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco View Post
    There's some backlog with designing the new tool-less front wheel removal dropouts. I think they ordered a batch "as they were", but will provide a retrofit option for those who buy a fork with the old dropouts and later want to change to the new, improved ones.

    In the meantime, we're still trying to break the prototypes... hard work
    "To Name me, is to label me." -
    Michi or Dick Van Patton

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,421
    Please, please! I'll break one for you...

    Won't even charge for my time.

    Your riders are obviously too skilful.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  46. #46
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Looks like you may end up breaking the frame or pretzel the wheels.

    I am not gonna use my fat bike like that.

    There are better and safer ways to fail test equipment. Ways that result in useful data.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv View Post
    Looks like you may end up breaking the frame or pretzel the wheels.

    I am not gonna use my fat bike like that.

    There are better and safer ways to fail test equipment. Ways that result in useful data.
    I would imagine that German Answer conducted the "useful data" tests before they released the prototypes of the fork.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,421
    Probably as foolproof as possible, but them fools are getting more cunning every day.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  49. #49
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,557
    I'll be a test dummy. I can't help but wonder about a DH fatbike.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv View Post
    Looks like you may end up breaking the frame or pretzel the wheels.

    I am not gonna use my fat bike like that.

    There are better and safer ways to fail test equipment. Ways that result in useful data.
    It's perfectly ok that you won't ever use your bike like that, but it might be comforting to know that your bike can handle stuff like that.

    If we pretzl the wheels or break a component, it means that they're probably not built strong enough. Sandman wants their bikes versatile, built for all uses, be it beach or snow cruising, long XC or AM marathons or enduro/freeride/downhill. And they're getting there: last week one of our team finished 3rd overall in a 3-day marathon in Wales. Now we're putting the exact same bikes through their paces in the Megavalanche in Alpe d'Huez - we only changed the pedals and the grips.
    Try hucking a marathon fully or an offset spoked fatbike off that chalet .

    And another one from our team is at this moment putting another identical bike through its paces during the TransPyr, a gruelling 7 day marathon straight through the Spanish Pyrenees. Days of more then 7-8000 ft of positive denivelation. And he's having a blast on it.

    The best way to find out that the bikes are really up to all kinds of abuse is to give them and their components hell for as long as possible before putting them on the market. No lab test can duplicate a bike being tossed around for months on end.

    I organise mountainbike holidays for a living (for the last 18 years) and I know perfectly well which models from what (often very big, established) brands always break in the long run. And which don't.
    All those "bad" models were lab designed and tested. But apparently not enough in real circumstances...

    The only Sandman frame we managed to break so far was last year in the British Columbia Bike Race. On the last day in Whistler and on a very steep descent a banjo fitting of the rear brake came loose and the descent ended full speed straight into a big tree. The frame buckled somewhat (front wheel and forks were fine), derailleur and chain broke, a shoulder got dislocated, handlebars bent and the race was finished running - in 16th position of the solo men category .

    As for field-testing these forks: we found out that one of German A subcontractors wasn't fabricating a part with the regular tolerances anymore. They themselves weren't aware of that (yet), but we caught it early.
    Same with the rebound: for "normal" XC or AM use the forks were and are perfect. But we found out that if you very fast over a rough, rocky downhill course you need a bit quicker rebound. They're going to widen the adjustability range now.

    Again, nice to know that whatever the use you'll put it to, your bike and it's components can handle it.






  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7
    so when are these forks and sandman bikes available for order?

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,421
    I like that approach to testing. I've bought enough big name stuff that's gone through all the usual lab stuff, but then it breaks in real life.

    I like brands where the company testers push things to the limit and race themselves.

    But now, the big question is will they have enough clearance for the 4.5" Big Fat Larry tyre?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  53. #53
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Be sure to post up the failure pics, if you get one. Hope ya don't.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv View Post
    Be sure to post up the failure pics, if you get one. Hope ya don't.
    Not much to report... after a week of testing stuff the "broken stuff" count sits at 5 inner tubes (regular punctures and snakebites assorted) and two Larry's: one with a small dime-sized portion of the rubber torn off, which didn't cause a puncture (we caught it while washing the bike). The second got the rim punched right through it during a big snake bite.

    On the very last moment of the last day two French guys asked to go for a test run. They were late returning and when an ambulance came flying by we jokingly said "there goes the reason they're late". About half an hour later we saw only one of the guys coming back with the two bikes... uh oh.... Turned out that they had taken a north-shore style of trail with some ramps and bridges, a trail they hadn"t done so far. Rolling down and over a bridge, the thing turned out not to be a bridge but a "launching" ramp
    Going slowly that resulted in a vertical 12ft nosedive, a bent saddle and a broken arm. The rest of the (alu) bike and the forks survived without a scratch and the surviving guy was stoked about the bikes' potential - I didn't get the opinion of the guy with the broken arm (just a few blood splats on the frame...). I hope he heals well, his friend didn't seem too concerned.

    Very good week, we had lots of fun with the bikes on those pretty tough trails. First time for me in one of those "bike park" areas. I still prefer natural trails but doing most of the uphill in a skilift sometimes has its merits .



    Picture courtesy of www.artreflex-photo.fr

  55. #55
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,588
    Any room for a WIDER version of these forks with the recent MASSIVE RUBBER news
    A Fatback'd Lefty for who life IS a Beach

  56. #56
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Sorry to hear about the broken arm.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Just heard that the first batch is going to hit the streets (or better, the Sandman bikes) around mid september. Fully available by late october.

    Quite a few little tweaks for the production model after all:
    - different seals. If run hard and long, like a 6000ft downhill , the wiper seals did too good of a job (or the sliders' surface was too even, two ways to look at it) and the forks would start to stick.
    - wider adjustment range of the outgoing damping.
    - new adjustment of the ingoing damping (not present on the original model), with lockout and overblow valve.
    - harder internal bumper to prevent tire rubbing the crown during really hard hits.
    - the travel adjustment will be ditched.
    - toolless front wheel removal.

    Standard 20mm through-axle hubs can be used without spacers. Travel is 90mm, but I hear there's a 120-130mm version in the works.

    't Will be a pretty neat fork

  58. #58
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,557
    Can't wait to see it! I'm anxiously waiting.

  59. #59
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,706
    And did you by chance hear anything about the expected price on these beauty's ?

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Should be more or less the same as the "normal" version of the Flame: 800 Euro. But it might be a tad more because of the added compression damping and different front axle/dropout setup. But it won't be far off the mark I guess, since the travel reduction went the way of the Dodo...

  61. #61
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,169
    I've been thinking lately about a 29'er bike with 150-160mm travel, or a 26'er with 160-170, travel. maybe what I need is a 150-160mm travel Fatbike

    Just need to save some money for next summer Might have to just get a Dorado, or an old Shiver, and reduce the travel. But nobody makes a frame!

  62. #62
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,557
    Any word on these badazz looking setups?

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    So the front hub spacing is 100mm? Wouldn't 135mm as per the Paul or Hadley Hub delivering a dishless, very strong and stiff wheel be a better option. Couple that with 170mm rear spacing again for standard hubs and I think the Sandman bikes would appeal to a wider audience still.

    Ti bike, 170mm rear/135 front with A flame would be awesome. I guess the problem at the mo is there isn't a 20mm or 15mmQR 135mm spaced front hub..Wonder if anyone is looking at that.

    Having said that, any front wheel strength issues useing 100mms? you seem to have done enough attempted destructive testing?

    Are the rear hubs still 165mm?

    Great looking bikes anyway. I'll be keeping my eye on them. I rode with Elias on the BM3D. Bike looked great.
    Aka chainline...

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    So the front hub spacing is 100mm? Wouldn't 135mm as per the Paul or Hadley Hub delivering a dishless, very strong and stiff wheel be a better option. Couple that with 170mm rear spacing again for standard hubs and I think the Sandman bikes would appeal to a wider audience still.

    Ti bike, 170mm rear/135 front with A flame would be awesome. I guess the problem at the mo is there isn't a 20mm or 15mmQR 135mm spaced front hub..Wonder if anyone is looking at that.

    Having said that, any front wheel strength issues useing 100mms? you seem to have done enough attempted destructive testing?

    Are the rear hubs still 165mm?

    Great looking bikes anyway. I'll be keeping my eye on them. I rode with Elias on the BM3D. Bike looked great.
    20 mm thru axle hubs are 110 mm spacing. I believe the QR15 system is protected by patents at the moment.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    20 mm thru axle hubs are 110 mm spacing. I believe the QR15 system is protected by patents at the moment.
    Is it Shimano/Fox that have that, I guess Sram is licensing it.

    Is there much choice available in the 110mm?

    None of the testing seems to have broke it so it must be pretty robust!

    170mm is readily available..
    Aka chainline...

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    So the front hub spacing is 100mm? Wouldn't 135mm as per the Paul or Hadley Hub delivering a dishless, very strong and stiff wheel be a better option. Couple that with 170mm rear spacing again for standard hubs and I think the Sandman bikes would appeal to a wider audience still.

    Ti bike, 170mm rear/135 front with A flame would be awesome. I guess the problem at the mo is there isn't a 20mm or 15mmQR 135mm spaced front hub..Wonder if anyone is looking at that.

    Having said that, any front wheel strength issues useing 100mms? you seem to have done enough attempted destructive testing?

    Are the rear hubs still 165mm?

    Great looking bikes anyway. I'll be keeping my eye on them. I rode with Elias on the BM3D. Bike looked great.
    The only front wheel that to my knowledge went (slightly) out of true was on Elias' racebike during the BCBR two years ago. On the last race day in Whistler one of his brakes failed (a banjo fitting came loose) on an extremely steep and fast descent. He went straight into a big tree, which resulted in an imprint of his glasses on his face, helmet for the rubbish bin, a bent frame, a dislocated shoulder and a slightly out of true front wheel - but he still managed to finish 16th overall .

    All the rough riding, the hucking off chalets and bike park ramps went totally "unnoticed" as to wheels front & back, so a standard QR20 hub coupled to a fat rim is plenty strong. And like you say, it has the huge advantage of being available in many brands, colours, disk types and such. Wider would be better, but it's plenty strong as it is so no need to complicate things.

    In the same line of thought, the 165mm rear hub is there to stay on a Sandman. For the moment it's about as "standard" as any other dimension on fatbike . I doubt they will go wider since they're designed them for efficient ALL terrain riding, not just for searching where the limit is on snow and quicksand, but being handicapped almost everywhere else.
    Most of our test riding was done on 47mm rims, and everybody felt the difference in necessary watts and more sluggish steering when switching to a light 70mm wide rim. Even the difference between a 70mm and an 80mm rim is noticeable.

    The added float of such wide rims is nice, but for trail riding not really a necessity - a 3.8 tire on 47mm rims has enough float for all rough trail riding and for on the beach. It's just in very, very soft terrain that a wider footprint rolls better.
    But now with the new 4.5 tires you can use 100mm rims as well for rocky trail riding. I haven't tried it yet, but I can see advantages crawling over real rough terrain and added comfort. Not sure if they'll be more efficient on "normal" rough trails and when trying to pick up speed. Probably not, but only real testing will tell.

    But anyway, Sandman frames were designed with "reserve" so they do accept a 100mm wide rim with one of the new 4.5 tires, with gears as I saw in another topic here. So why go wider if properly curved chainstays and a 165mm hub do the job ?

    Back to the forks: I think the first batch of wide Flame forks will be delivered by the end of september, for the first orders on complete Sandman bikes. A larger batch, including "aftermarket" units will follow a month later.
    A 3.8 tire on a 80mm rim fits, I haven't got a 4.5 tire to try.

  67. #67
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,557
    Sweet! Can't wait to see them.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    Thanks Caminoloc. apologies for some slight confusion, Ai did not mean 100mm rims, I was referring to the front hub width, unsure whether it was 110mm (the Maverik STD) or 100mm std.

    Although it's very interesting to hear the differences felt in resistance using wider rims than 47mm?

    What rims were you using? Chris Holm or something different..
    Aka chainline...

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    Thanks Caminoloc. apologies for some slight confusion, Ai did not mean 100mm rims, I was referring to the front hub width, unsure whether it was 110mm (the Maverik STD) or 100mm std.

    Although it's very interesting to hear the differences felt in resistance using wider rims than 47mm?

    What rims were you using? Chris Holm or something different..
    110 is not a Maverick standard. It was used on standard 20 mm thru-axle hubs before Maverick came out with their 24 mm axle system.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    463
    The widened german A Flame fork in hte sandman does a verry nice job!

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    Does the max driver weight of 95kg remain the same for the "wide" version?

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    456
    WOW, a $1000+ US$ fork.
    Still, it IS actually available, and haven't seen a comparable solution yet.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    The manual charts recommended air chamber pressures up to 100 kg, no mention of max weight.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by roobydoo View Post
    wow, a $1000+ us$ fork.
    Still, it is actually available, and haven't seen a comparable solution yet.
    999 for 90mm fixed travel and 1199 for 130mm adjustable travel...

    If were not for those 7 to 8 weeks delivery time

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco View Post
    The manual charts recommended air chamber pressures up to 100 kg, no mention of max weight.
    Now they need to get their delivery times shorter

  76. #76
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,476
    wow me likey since i'll be using marge lite rims & larry's. the problem i'll have is my new paul WHUB fitment

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    I still need to lace my front wheel, so no efforts lost their.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by HDTVdevil View Post
    Now they need to get their delivery times shorter
    Indeed, due to the piecemeal delivery the forks are for the moment only available on complete Sandman bikes or rolling frames...

    The drawbacks of a not-made-in-China fork... but I can attest that they're absolutely bomber, I've been riding my prototype fork with zilch maintenance since january 2011. Icelandic grit, African dust, Pyrenean rocks, Belgian mud: the thing just keeps on pumping .

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco View Post
    Indeed, due to the piecemeal delivery the forks are for the moment only available on complete Sandman bikes or rolling frames...

    The drawbacks of a not-made-in-China fork... but I can attest that they're absolutely bomber, I've been riding my prototype fork with zilch maintenance since january 2011. Icelandic grit, African dust, Pyrenean rocks, Belgian mud: the thing just keeps on pumping .
    I know, it was a pity the hoggar was not available as frame/fork only... Mijn pech...

  80. #80
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,476
    suggestions for a F hub to fit the Flame??

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Any decent standard 20mm front hub will do just fine, the Notubes ZTR is pretty hassle free.

  82. #82
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,476
    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco View Post
    Any decent standard 20mm front hub will do just fine, the Notubes ZTR is pretty hassle free.
    or a CK ISO 20mm x 110??

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    or a CK ISO 20mm x 110??
    Will be my choice too but their are others like the one from Hope in case you have a Hope hub in the rear

    EDIT: actually, since my rear-hub is from PhilWood, I'd probably put a PhilWood in front too.
    Last edited by HDTVdevil; 05-04-2012 at 06:38 AM.

  84. #84
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,476
    gotta keep this near the top.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    gotta keep this near the top.
    why?

  86. #86
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,476
    Quote Originally Posted by HDTVdevil View Post
    why?
    rather why not?

  87. #87
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,476
    awesome

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    if I put my experiences with the "wide" flame, it will show up on top again but that will be somewhere end of june beginning july .... long delivery times

  89. #89
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,476
    Quote Originally Posted by HDTVdevil View Post
    if I put my experiences with the "wide" flame, it will show up on top again but that will be somewhere end of june beginning july .... long delivery times
    With the A-C length of 506mm thats significantly more than a pugs 447mm which would really screw the geo up....

  90. #90
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    With the A-C length of 506mm thats significantly more than a pugs 447mm which would really screw the geo up....
    Does that 506 number include the reduction that is shock sag?
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  91. #91
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Does that 506 number include the reduction that is shock sag?
    I don't believe so as thats the spec listing from german-a website but for sake of discussion if we deduct 1/4 of it's length for sag it sets at 474 which is much better but still longish.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HDTVdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289
    But not on mukluk for which the "enabler" fork is equivalent to a shock of 80mm and 20% sag

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

  93. #93
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    this thread needs some rock and roll

    (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party) - YouTube

  94. #94
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv View Post
    this thread needs some rock and roll

    (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party) - YouTube
    Sad day, about MCA.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  95. #95
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,706

  96. #96
    more beers, less gears
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    219
    look what i get to play with tomorrow



    i put on some proper bars, though


  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    575
    Don't !!

    Those bars just "finish" the bike !

  98. #98
    more beers, less gears
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    219
    what a day, what a ride...
    i think i could fall in love with this bike



    only problem: had a puncture thanks to a rock, i thought to be smaller and fixing that 2.5" maxxis tube did work, but only for 10mins...

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bprsnt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by rigidftw View Post
    what a day, what a ride...
    i think i could fall in love with this bike



    only problem: had a puncture thanks to a rock, i thought to be smaller and fixing that 2.5" maxxis tube did work, but only for 10mins...
    Please give us a ride report
    I just ordered mine on Friday and have a 3-4 week wait.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    155
    after only owning my Necromancer for a week i can already see the value that FS would bring to it. This sport is in its infancy and shortly at least front squish will be the norm. Nice fork.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •